High Tension

[Os3y3ris]

Just saw the original uncut DVD of this slasher film. I'm torn. I enjoyed the movie while I was watching it, but after gving it some thought, it became quite painful. The plot collapse, or "twist", as I'm sure the film makers viewed it, in the end is ATROCIOUS. First of all its not surprising. If you take a look at the trailer or the posters, something doesn't look quite right. First time I took a close look at the trailer, I guessed the ending. I was still shocked when it happened, but I wasn't surpised in the least. After seeing this mindfuck of an ending I went back through the film looking for clues. There were none. In sixth sense, one could've understood willis was a ghost. In Unbreakable, it made sense that Sammy would be the villain. However, the twist in this film makes no sense upon its revelation, and even LESS sense after multiple viewings.

Anyways, on to the rest of the movie. This film starts with two college girls, Marie and "Alex", headed to Alex's home in the country to study. Marie is so clearly a lesbian that its not even funny. Alex is apparantly just dumb and doesn't notice that her best friend is drooling after her. Or maybe not. The ending is so bad that NOTHING makes sense. Anyways, Marie spends her time creepily lusting after her unwitting friend into the night. After she watches her friend shower from the window, she retires to her room turning up some reggae and masturbating. Suddenly, a knock at the door. SLAUGHTER. And there you have your movie.

The slasher violence is quite cool. The acting is passable. This movie owns until the last 20 min and continues to own afterwards. Still, run screaming from the the theater about 1:13 into the movie. When the cops find the gas station, RUN.

[CIVILISON]

Is this a French movie?

[Os3y3ris]

Yep. The original title is Haute Tension. All French with English subs.

[SAMURAI36]

PEACE O:

I just saw this film over the weekend, and planned on doing a review myself, but you beat me to it.

os3y3ris said:

Just saw the original uncut DVD of this slasher film. I'm torn. I enjoyed the movie while I was watching it, but after gving it some thought, it became quite painful.

I've come to find that you and I look for different things from movies, so to each his own, I suppose.

I for one, enjoyed it, among various reasons--mostly because of the "tattle-tale" mentality that many of these psycho-films have these days, of giving us a glimpse into the Euro-Western psychotic mind at its best (or worst?)..........

FIGHT CLUB.......HIDE AND SEEK......PURPLE HEART.....



HIGH TENSION (originally called SWITCHBLAD ROMANS in France) was no exception.

The plot collapse, or "twist", as I'm sure the film makers viewed it, in the end is ATROCIOUS. First of all its not surprising. If you take a look at the trailer or the posters, something doesn't look quite right. First time I took a close look at the trailer, I guessed the ending. I was still shocked when it happened, but I wasn't surpised in the least. After seeing this mindfuck of an ending I went back through the film looking for clues. There were none.

This entire set of statements, particularly the last 2, are not accurate.

Not to spoil the film for anyone, but the beginning scenes of the film, in which the main character met the family was rife with "clues".

Remember when she went outside to smoke? And then was "gone"?

Remember when she went into the gas station, and the station attendant looked at her funny? What about when the "villain" touched his hand? Very uncharacteristic for someone who rapes women.

And what about her sitting in the institution at the very beginning of the film? That's not a clue to you?

There were a few other clues as well, but I have to watch the film a couple more times in order to articulate them here.

In sixth sense, one could've understood willis was a ghost. In Unbreakable, it made sense that Sammy would be the villain. However, the twist in this film makes no sense upon its revelation, and even LESS sense after multiple viewings.

Definitely disagree here. I think this film was rather well-executed; even though I saw the clues (which I initially thought of as "weird" and out of place), they still didn't lead me right to the punchline, which to me was the satisfactorily done "twist".

Anyways, on to the rest of the movie. This film starts with two college girls, Marie and "Alex", headed to Alex's home in the country to study. Marie is so clearly a lesbian that its not even funny. Alex is apparantly just dumb and doesn't notice that her best friend is drooling after her. Or maybe not.

Not to offer this as a justification of any sort, but what needs to be understood here, is that homosexuality is handled far differently in Europe than over here in the States.

A man that looks overly "feminine" could very much be the DON JUAN of ladies; a "butchy" woman over there (short hair cut and what-not) could very well be the biggest man whore.

To be honest, both chicks looked a bit on the "Lesbo" side to me--but I can't apply American standards to them.

Within the film though, both women had a discussion about finding men for themselves eventually, so the issue of homosexuality was never blatantly established until the end.

The ending is so bad that NOTHING makes sense. Anyways, Marie spends her time creepily lusting after her unwitting friend into the night. After she watches her friend shower from the window, she retires to her room turning up some reggae and masturbating.

It's interesting that you mention this, but don't recognize the "clues" that this one scene in particular was rife with.

Suddenly, a knock at the door. SLAUGHTER. And there you have your movie.

Clearly, we got different things from this film. Without spoiling it further, I have to say that it's interesting how people perceive the psychotic, versus how they perceive themselves, whether its TYLER's crew in FIGHT CLUB, or DENIRO's daughter in HIDE AND SEEK, or the gas station attendant in HIGH TENSION.

Suffice it to say, there was far more going on in this film, than just the slasher scenes; to be honest, I was finding myself rather bored with that aspect, and was ready to color myself disappointed if that's all there was to the film.

The slasher violence is quite cool. The acting is passable. This movie owns until the last 20 min and continues to own afterwards. Still, run screaming from the the theater about 1:13 into the movie. When the cops find the gas station, RUN.

The "fun" thing I like about films like this one (and the others mentioned) is working your way backwards into the film, after the "twist" is established. Sometimes the film will do it for you, but usually only up to a certain extent. This film did exactly that, making you trace your steps back just to a certain point, leaving the imagination of the viewer to do the rest for themselves.

If you wanna see psycho thriller meets 80's slasher, then this is your movie.

PEACE

[Os3y3ris]

HIGH TENSION (originally called SWITCHBLAD ROMANS in France) was no exception.

That was the English title.

Remember when she went outside to smoke? And then was "gone"?

Don't recall that. What are you refering to?

Remember when she went into the gas station, and the station attendant looked at her funny?

She was likely acting VERY odd. She was possibly ranting, watching around, etc, etc. We simply don't know for sure.

What about when the "villain" touched his hand? Very uncharacteristic for someone who rapes women.

I took that as intimidation. Jimmy seemed to know this guy and was clearly intimidated by him. Probably knew he was a killer.

And what about her sitting in the institution at the very beginning of the film? That's not a clue to you?

Well, that was fairly obvsious. I meant clues throught the narrative.

even though I saw the clues (which I initially thought of as "weird" and out of place), they still didn't lead me right to the punchline, which to me was the satisfactorily done "twist".

No? I thoght it was fairly obvious, though they cheated bit during the telling of the story. To me, the brutality of the heroine during the trailers gave some things away.

Within the film though, both women had a discussion about finding men for themselves eventually, so the issue of homosexuality was never blatantly established until the end.

You didn't pick up on that? That was the whole point of the convos. It established Marie as a lesbian. Her eagerness to meet her friends parents, her dodging the questions about meeting men herself, her jealousy, etc. It was pretty clear. And for gods sake, she felt herself up listening to "just another girl".

It's interesting that you mention this, but don't recognize the "clues" that this one scene in particular was rife with.

There were plenty of symbolic clues, but nothing physical. From a symbolic and psychological angle, the film makes sense. My beef is that we simply dont know what happened, which is fairly interesting to me. Take Fight Club. Everything was accounted for as far as what the two men were doing. Tyler would be one place, our hero would be completely free. In this, our hero was up to something, while the villain would be engaged in a completely seperate endeavor, gaining physical reactions from the people and things around him.

Suffice it to say, there was far more going on in this film, than just the slasher scenes; to be honest, I was finding myself rather bored with that aspect, and was ready to color myself disappointed if that's all there was to the film.

This is where we disagree. Texas Chainsaw Massacre is the high point of the genre. The film is flawless. To recreate that raw, relentless brutality, which HT for the most part did, is no easy feat. That alone carried the film. Brutality, presented almost as a force of nature is in and of itself worth some thought and intellectually deep enough to carry a film in hindsight, especially when combined with some introspection. Who is Leatherface? Why is he scary? Why am I watching him cut people up? Adding a forced and artificial twist does nothing.

The "fun" thing I like about films like this one (and the others mentioned) is working your way backwards into the film, after the "twist" is established. Sometimes the film will do it for you, but usually only up to a certain extent. This film did exactly that, making you trace your steps back just to a certain point, leaving the imagination of the viewer to do the rest for themselves.

I'm imagining a better ending. I'd have liked to see her driven mad by the violence, killing her friend and the man in the car before being stopped. The homosexual/serial killer parallel could still be there, but only in a symbollic sense as opposed to the literal manner it was displayed in here.

[SAMURAI36]

os3y3ris said:

That was the English title.

My bad, you're right; that was the name of the film in England.

Don't recall that. What are you refering to?

The same scene that you had earlier referred to; where she goes outside to smoke, while watching her friend taking a shower in the window.

Watch the scene again, and you'll see what I mean.

She was likely acting VERY odd. She was possibly ranting, watching around, etc, etc. We simply don't know for sure.

That's true, however:

I took that as intimidation. Jimmy seemed to know this guy and was clearly intimidated by him. Probably knew he was a killer.

Without ruining the movie for others, how does this transition take place, between the attendant's PERCEPTION from her, and then to the killer afterwards?

Where would the attendant have "known" the "killer" from?

And in the meantime, didn't the 2 chicks go to get gas earlier in the film? (don't quote me on that part though).....

Well, that was fairly obvsious. I meant clues throught the narrative.

Narrative.........Do you mean the script? Because there was little to no narrative that I can recall.

Bear in mind though, I saw the recent American version, and not the original that you'd seen.

No? I thoght it was fairly obvious, though they cheated bit during the telling of the story. To me, the brutality of the heroine during the trailers gave some things away.

You apparently had alot more insight that I did, then.

I had the pleasure of knowing absolutely nothing about this film, prior to seeing it.

You didn't pick up on that? That was the whole point of the convos. It established Marie as a lesbian.

I guess I didn't, given that I was more attuned to the way that Euro's handle sexuality differently than we do over here.

Plus, I took into consideration the part about her being picky about finding a mate (MAN).

Her eagerness to meet her friends parents,her dodging the questions about meeting men herself, her jealousy, etc.

Maybe I've got to see this film again, as there appears to be some aspects that I overlooked......However, from what I do/can recall, the above scenarios I simply chocked up to being an over-indulging ("obsessive")friend in the beginning.

Remember the corn-field scene, where the other girl left her in the field as a joke? Remember how she (over)reacted?

It was pretty clear. And for gods sake, she felt herself up listening to "just another girl".

I don't recall the name of the song that she was listening to, but I do remember it being sung by a dude..... Something with sort of a Reggae tune, IIRC.

Lesbians get off to songs sung by dudes?

Nothing there for me to pick up on........As far as her getting off.......Well, she did establish that she didn't have a man.

There were plenty of symbolic clues, but nothing physical. From a symbolic and psychological angle, the film makes sense.

In my mind's eye, that's the perspective from which a film like this (and FIGHT CLUB, and the others I mentioned) is told.

Even 6TH SENSE that you mentioned follows along the same lines.

My beef is that we simply dont know what happened, which is fairly interesting to me.

I agree, however:

Take Fight Club. Everything was accounted for as far as what the two men were doing. Tyler would be one place, our hero would be completely free.

Assuming that "our hero" means the BRAD PITT character, there were times in which the presence of both characters doesn't add up.

Take the last fight scene between the two of them, for example.........How is it explained that the fight is caught on film, and we see NORTON's character getting "dragged" by........What, nothing? A GHOST? It came off as almost supernatural. But not so much so, that it detracted from the premise.

Same with HT; remember when the killer was walking around after he killed the gas attendant, and asked to himself: "WHAT WERE YOU LOOKING AT, JIMMY"?

In this, our hero was up to something, while the villain would be engaged in a completely seperate endeavor, gaining physical reactions from the people and things around him.

Perfect example of the above.

The entire gas station scene from HT left the viewer no reason to suspect what the "real reality" was.

This is where we disagree. Texas Chainsaw Massacre is the high point of the genre. The film is flawless. To recreate that raw, relentless brutality, which HT for the most part did, is no easy feat. That alone carried the film. Brutality, presented almost as a force of nature is in and of itself worth some thought and intellectually deep enough to carry a film in hindsight, especially when combined with some introspection. Who is Leatherface? Why is he scary? Why am I watching him cut people up? Adding a forced and artificial twist does nothing.

Indeed, this is where we diverge.......I was absolutely bored with TCSM, when it first came out, and even now in my "old age".

Senseless violence without rhyme or reason. At least we knew why FREDDY and JASON did what they did.

And for me, it was the reasons WHY they did it, that made it scary; otherwise it was just the same thing over and over, for 7 and 8 movie sequels a piece:

Girl and boy are making out.......Boy hears a noise and goes to investigate.......Ch-Ch-Ch---Hah-hah-hah.....machete through the neck.......Girl comes out with ta-ta's exposed.....Tells boyfriend to "quit playing around".......Ch-Ch-Ch--Hah-Hah-Hah........Machete through the chest.

BORING.

For me it was the ties to CAMP CRYSTAL LAKE, and ELM STREET that made the whole thing terrifying.

I'm imagining a better ending. I'd have liked to see her driven mad by the violence, killing her friend and the man in the car before being stopped. The homosexual/serial killer parallel could still be there, but only in a symbollic sense as opposed to the literal manner it was displayed in here.

I'm having trouble envisioning what you're saying here.......Especially since what you seem to be describing, sounds exactly like what took place in the film.

The homosexuality aspect was symbolic to what was going on.

PEACE

[Os3y3ris]

Watch the scene again, and you'll see what I mean.

Ok, I think I recall.

Without ruining the movie for others, how does this transition take place, between the attendant's PERCEPTION from her, and then to the killer afterwards?

It doesn't. The question is as to what her behavior is. Its pretty clear seeing as he ultimately fetches him a beer.

Where would the attendant have "known" the "killer" from?

Previous runs. Notice the extra pictures on the truck? The killer had done that before. Here's the crazy thing, HE NEVER KNEW "ALEX".

Narrative.........Do you mean the script? Because there was little to no narrative that I can recall.

I mean the story as told by the girl.

I don't recall the name of the song that she was listening to, but I do remember it being sung by a dude.....

Something with sort of a Reggae tune, IIRC.

Listen to the lyrics. "Just another girl..."

In my mind's eye, that's the perspective from which a film like this (and FIGHT CLUB, and the others I mentioned) is told.

Even 6TH SENSE that you mentioned follows along the same lines.

To a degree yes, but for a twist to mean anything there must be a "literal" truth for the distorted reality to contrast with.

Assuming that "our hero" means the BRAD PITT character, there were times in which the presence of both characters doesn't add up.

Take the last fight scene between the two of them, for example.........How is it explained that the fight is caught on film, and we see NORTON's character getting "dragged" by........What, nothing? A GHOST? It came off as almost supernatural. But not so much so, that it detracted from the premise.

I saw that as his body reacting to a percieved force.

The entire gas station scene from HT left the viewer no reason to suspect what the "real reality" was.

Which is because nothing acted in accordance with either one exclusively.

Senseless violence without rhyme or reason. At least we knew why FREDDY and JASON did what they did.

Thats why Leatherface is so fearsome. He has no reason, no purpose, nothing. Thats what he does. He's Leatherface, end of story.

I'm having trouble envisioning what you're saying here.......Especially since what you seem to be describing, sounds exactly like what took place in the film.

The homosexuality aspect was symbolic to what was going on.

Im saying that having the girl driven mad by the prior events would've been more interesting. As for the homosexuality thing, it LITERALLY caused those events.

[SAMURAI36]

os3y3ris said:

Ok, I think I recall.

Cool. I'm going to watch the film again over the weekend as well. Still, I wonder how different the version you have is, from the one I'd seen.....??

It doesn't. The question is as to what her behavior is. Its pretty clear seeing as he ultimately fetches him a beer.

Using FIGHT CLUB as a model, BRAD PITT did a good job in explaining what the "discrepancies" would have been, as far was what the viewer would have perceived.

In HT, the gas station scene throws the viewer totally from the intended direction of discovery (which I still maintain is a good thing), based on the deliberate askewing of the viewer's perception.

Meaning, we are made to see the killer's view, and not the Gas Attendant's.

But was that necessarily the view that the attendant saw? And what within the story would have given us this indication?

Previous runs. Notice the extra pictures on the truck? The killer had done that before. Here's the crazy thing, HE NEVER KNEW "ALEX".

Agreed.

I mean the story as told by the girl.

Or rather from her point of view?

Listen to the lyrics. "Just another girl..."

I will, when I watch the movie again. Still I'm saying, there is nothing in and of itself--just her getting off to that song--to lead me to recognize any homo tendencies on her part--at least not right away, but certainly perhaps with other aspects of character combined together.

I dunno, I'll have to watch the film again from both perspectives.......I had to watch FIGHT CLUB several times, just to see if I'd missed anything (I didn't miss much after seeing it the second time though; each subsequent time was purely for entertainment value).

To a degree yes, but for a twist to mean anything there must be a "literal" truth for the distorted reality to contrast with.

You don't think that was the case for this film?

I saw that as his body reacting to a percieved force.

Check that scene out again; how on earth could he physically react to perceiving himself as being dragged? I was literally defying the laws of gravity with that.

Which is because nothing acted in accordance with either one exclusively.

I can't say that I totally agree here.

I do think that there were instances in which the 2 perceptions did not always run congruent, but I also think that the film did a good job towards the end of bringing it all together--certainly not to the degree of FIGHT CLUB, mind you, but a good job nonetheless.

Thats why Leatherface is so fearsome. He has no reason, no purpose, nothing. Thats what he does. He's Leatherface, end of story.

That's an "each his own" thing then, I suppose.

LF's hoarse screams over the chainsaw's roar never did anything for me.

Take MICHAEL MYERS, for instance.....We never really get a clear understanding of his history; just his attachment to the anniversary of Halloween, and his sister keeps him coming back. But why? For me, that's the thing that makes him eerie.

LF to me, is just this insane dude that's a part of this cooky little in-bred family in the middle of nowheresville TX.

Perhaps if I were to experience something like that in real life, then I might be able to conjure up the fear......But watching it on screen, I've never been able to associate the premise with the fear that its meant to invoke.

Im saying that having the girl driven mad by the prior events would've been more interesting. As for the homosexuality thing, it LITERALLY caused those events.

I think her obsession overall sparked the events.......

Unless you're making the connection of homosexuality to dementia, and/or some other disorder (A DISCUSSION FOR ANOTHER TIME).

Nevertheless, if the film were to follow your model, then there would not have been a film to begin with.

Like you stated, based on the pictures, the killer has done this many times in the past. Therefore, it wasn't necessarily about the girl's friend, but just a derranged obsession. Her friend just happened to find herself on that path.

Remember, the killer didn't "love" the friend, and his actions were not a reflection of any affection. Even further, why was the killer a man, if homosexuality was the driving force to begin with.

PEACE

[Os3y3ris]

Still, I wonder how different the version you have is, from the one I'd seen.....??

Aside from the nationality of some character, the dubbing and possibly some violence cutting, I haven't heard of any REAL changes.

Or rather from her point of view?

That works.

I will, when I watch the movie again. Still I'm saying, there is nothing in and of itself--just her getting off to that song--to lead me to recognize any homo tendencies on her part--at least not right away, but certainly perhaps with other aspects of character combined together.

No one element defined her as a lesbian, but all together, it was fairly obvious.

You don't think that was the case for this film?

I think the literal realit was kinda thin here. We don't know much.

Check that scene out again; how on earth could he physically react to perceiving himself as being dragged? I was literally defying the laws of gravity with that.

TRUE, but thats a tad easier to forgive IMO.

I think her obsession overall sparked the events.......

Unless you're making the connection of homosexuality to dementia, and/or some other disorder (A DISCUSSION FOR ANOTHER TIME).

I don't see her as being obsessed with Alex particularly. IMO she never knew the girl. What she wanted, based on her delusions, especially as revealed in the end, was a girl. Any girl. While her psychosis was seperaete from ordinary sexual lust, homo or otherwise, lust was a key part of it. Perhaps there were some sexual repression issuses there as well?

Unless you're making the connection of homosexuality to dementia, and/or some other disorder (A DISCUSSION FOR ANOTHER TIME).[/quote]

I'm not. I merely think it played a role in fueling this girl. Had she been heterosxual, there'd be no real need to lust after any man in her case.

Like you stated, based on the pictures, the killer has done this many times in the past. Therefore, it wasn't necessarily about the girl's friend, but just a derranged obsession. Her friend just happened to find herself on that path.

We agree here.

Remember, the killer didn't "love" the friend, and his actions were not a reflection of any affection.

It was indicative of lust though, which I can only assume is a key part of homosexuality at least to the same extent as heterosexuals experience it.

Even further, why was the killer a man, if homosexuality was the driving force to begin with.

The heroine was rather masculine as well. I took it as her homosexuality either causing, or being caused by her masculine attributes.

[CIVILISON]

Hmm... I might have to see this movie myself.

is it out on DVD yet?

[SAMURAI36]

os3y3ris said:

Aside from the nationality of some character, the dubbing and possibly some violence cutting, I haven't heard of any REAL changes.

I take it you've seen the American release then?

No one element defined her as a lesbian, but all together, it was fairly obvious.

It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I think I'll need to see the film again, to try to see it from that perspective.

However, from what I'd seen, I don't think that she was overtly homosexual--more on that later in my post though.

I think the literal realit was kinda thin here. We don't know much.

I agree with that... There is a bit of a blur between the "established" reality, and the psychotic aspect.

Meaning, as I think you had previously stated, that the 2 perceptions don't totally jibe together--possibly as well as they perhaps could.

However, I'm wondering if that was perhaps intentional, on the part of the writers though.

Using FIGHT CLUB as a model (one of the best in this case), there was far more going on in FC than in HT, aside from the psychosis.

TRUE, but thats a tad easier to forgive IMO.

I agree, based what I'd just stated above.

However, I still believe that it was quite significant; the writer of FC wanted us (the viewer) to see both the blatant and subtle messages that the movie was conveying.......There was a reason why the writer specifically shot that scene, in which we see TYLER being "dragged" by his alter ego on a security camera--if for no other reason, than to convey a less (or is it more?) obscured view for the audience.

I guess that's neither here nor there though. Still FC is a masterpiece.

I don't see her as being obsessed with Alex particularly.

I agree; her obsession transcended any one particular person. It was a notion or idea or feeling that she was obsessed with.

IMO she never knew the girl. What she wanted, based on her delusions, especially as revealed in the end, was a girl. Any girl. While her psychosis was seperaete from ordinary sexual lust, homo or otherwise, lust was a key part of it. Perhaps there were some sexual repression issuses there as well?

Your last question here, is more than just a rhetorical one.

I think that the killer represented the personification of supressed sexuality, and the issues thereof. Remember, she was trying as hard as she could (IMO) to conceal her sexuality to her friend.......

Perhaps, hence the name "HIGH TENSION"?

I'm not. I merely think it played a role in fueling this girl. Had she been heterosxual, there'd be no real need to lust after any man in her case.

In a passive-aggressive aspect, yes I agree. I think it was the direct cause of her psychosis, which led to the killer coming around.

By the way, I think they found the perfect dude to play that part of the killer; a funky, rotund, ugly troll of a man, who would obviously have issues in and of his own life, with finding sexual gratification from a woman. The only way he would be able to find it, is to do what he does.

It was indicative of lust though, which I can only assume is a key part of homosexuality at least to the same extent as heterosexuals experience it.

I don't think that lust was necessarily the primary factor, neither for the killer nor for the girl.

Both were looking for that release; the girl was looking for sexual release the entire time, and the killer found it in his heinous acts.

The heroine was rather masculine as well.

Perhaps by our standards, yes........But she looks like the typical Euro girl to me. There's this Polish girl at my gym, that looks very "boyish", yet she loves herself some Black men.

Looking at her, she looks like BROOM-HILDA, but from what I've heard, she's a (hetero)sexual machine.

For some reason, this entire discussion--and the girl from the film, puts me in the mind of Mega (the girl from the gym).

I took it as her homosexuality either causing, or being caused by her masculine attributes.

I still feel that there was more at work than just the homosexuality.

I'm definitely gonna do the knowledge on this film again. Now I feel like I've missed so much from it.

PEACE

[Os3y3ris]

is it out on DVD yet?

Maybe Switchblade Romance?

I take it you've seen the American release then?

Nope. Just telling you what I've heard.

Anyways, running out. I'll address the meat of the post later.

[Os3y3ris]

I agree with that... There is a bit of a blur between the "established" reality, and the psychotic aspect.

Meaning, as I think you had previously stated, that the 2 perceptions don't totally jibe together--possibly as well as they perhaps could.

Thats pretty much my only beef with the film. Had their been better continuity, the twist would be more acceptable to me.

However, I'm wondering if that was perhaps intentional, on the part of the writers though.

I'd love to hear the DVD commentary if there is any.

Using FIGHT CLUB as a model (one of the best in this case), there was far more going on in FC than in HT, aside from the psychosis.

Agreed, yet FC handled that element a lot better in my opinion.

Your last question here, is more than just a rhetorical one.

I think that the killer represented the personification of supressed sexuality, and the issues thereof. Remember, she was trying as hard as she could (IMO) to conceal her sexuality to her friend.......

Perhaps, hence the name "HIGH TENSION"?

Agreed.

By the way, I think they found the perfect dude to play that part of the killer; a funky, rotund, ugly troll of a man, who would obviously have issues in and of his own life, with finding sexual gratification from a woman. The only way he would be able to find it, is to do what he does.

Agreed.

I don't think that lust was necessarily the primary factor, neither for the killer nor for the girl.

Both were looking for that release; the girl was looking for sexual release the entire time, and the killer found it in his heinous acts.

So did the girl for that matter. She enjoyed killing the villain.

I still feel that there was more at work than just the homosexuality.

If there is, I missed it. I don't think it TRIGGERED her snap, as most gays are fairly sane, but I think it was definitely responsible for the nature of her psychosis.